shakespeare's king lear and macbeth reinvented in the films of akira

45 Pages·2007·0.15 MB·English

by  Erica Lee Zilleruelo

SHAKESPEARE BY ANY OTHER WORD?:
SHAKESPEARE’S KING LEAR AND MACBETH REINVENTED
IN THE FILMS OF AKIRA KUROSAWA

A Thesis by
Erica Lee Zilleruelo
Bachelor of Arts, Penn State University, 2002

Submitted to the Department of English
and the faculty of the Graduate School of
Wichita State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts

May 2007
© Copyright 2007 by Erica Lee Zilleruelo
All Rights Reserved
SHAKESPEARE BY ANY OTHER WORD?:
SHAKESPEARE’S KING LEAR AND MACBETH REINVENTED
IN THE FILMS OF AKIRA KUROSAWA

I have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be
accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts with a major
in English.

____________________________________________
Donald Wineke, Committee Chair

We have read this thesis
and recommend its acceptance:

____________________________________________
Christopher Brooks, Committee Member

____________________________________________
Ramona Liera-Schwichtenberg, Committee Member

iii
DEDICATION

To Art
with love and thanks

iv
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Professor Don Wineke and Professor Chris Brooks for
demonstrating that true scholars do still exist in the world. Their wisdom along with their patient
and insightful guidance helped in making this project possible. Thanks are also due to Prof.
Ramona Liera-Schwichtenberg for providing valuable commentary from a new point of view on
my project and to Professor Dean Baldwin of Penn State Erie for providing the spark that began
my interest in Shakespeare thereby showing me that my only love could, in fact, spring from my
only hate. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their continued support: Ut legebitis hoc
scio, etsi ut non intellegetis dicebo.

vi
ABSTRACT

Directors world-wide have made countless film adaptations of Shakespeare’s works, so a
somewhat heated debate exists in terms of what deserves the label “Shakespearean film,”
initiating conversation regarding what constitutes use of the word “Shakespearean.” Without a
doubt, and for any given play, Shakespeare borrowed anything from character names to plots,
settings, etc.—all the items that form the bulk of his plays. One cannot, however, limit
consideration of a signature element to these items, for they exist as stock elements that have
repeated and resurfaced over the span of the ages. The language, all inclusively—the diction,
puns, measure, etc.—makes Shakespeare’s plays Shakespeare’s.
In Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare writes, “[w]hat’s in a name? That which we call a rose
/ By any other word would smell as sweet” (2.2.43-4); however, can this statement
metaphorically apply to that which we have come to know as Shakespearean film? In other
words, when a filmmaker removes Shakespeare’s language, thereby removing Shakespeare’s
signature from the work, would the film “smell as sweet,” so to speak, as Shakespeare’s play,
purely on the basis that it names Shakespeare as its source material?
My project will look at two of Shakespeare’s plays—Macbeth and King Lear—and
Japanese director Akira Kurosawa’s corresponding film versions—Throne of Blood and Ran, and
will assess what happens to the Shakespearean element of these films when Kurosawa translates
the plays not only into another medium, but another language.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
1. Introduction 1
2. MACBETH / THRONE OF BLOOD 2
3. KING LEAR / RAN 18
LIST OF REFERENCES 35

viii
Shakespeare by Any Other Word?:
Shakespeare’s King Lear and Macbeth Reinvented in the Films of Akira Kurosawa
Directors worldwide have adapted Shakespeare’s works to film for decades, so a
somewhat heated debate has surfaced in terms of what deserves the label “Shakespearean film.”
This dispute includes a spectrum of opinions on the matter, including one extreme in John
Ottenhoff’s assertion that “no performance can substitute for the richness of reading, discussing,
and meditating upon a text” (qtd. in Brode 3) to the other extreme in Douglas Brode’s somewhat
glib opposing view that “Shakespeare’s approach resembles that of a moviemaker[.] . . .
Shakespeare was the bravura crowd pleaser, the Elizabethan predecessor to Cecil B. DeMille and
Steven Spielberg” (4-5). To address the former, one must consider the time during which
Shakespeare wrote his works. In Will in the World, Stephen Greenblatt explains that “playing
companies were wary about allowing their scripts to circulate widely. . . . [T]hey wanted the
public principally to encounter plays in the playhouse, not in the study” (295); moreover, as
Brode points out, Shakespeare never even had the plays printed (3), though some evidence
stating that he may have intended to do so exists. The presence of such extreme sentiments
necessitates an investigation into what must occur in a film to grant it the title of
“Shakespearean” in order to help reach some sort of amicable middle ground on the topic.
This is not to say that a film that fails to earn such a label also fails as an artistic
expression in its own right; however, some of the films that claim one of Shakespeare’s plays as
their source material should reasonably go beyond Shakespeare and instead credit the material
Shakespeare used as his sources. “As he often did with texts he liked,” Greenblatt reveals,
Shakespeare adapted other literary works, “lift[ing] . . . wholesale” (270) anything from
character names to plots, settings, etc.—all the elements that form the bulk of his plays. One
1
cannot, therefore, limit the determination of Shakespeare’s signature—that which makes a work
uniquely his—to such stock elements, for they have repeated and resurfaced over the span of the
ages. Such films should perhaps move beyond Shakespeare and credit a more precise source for
their plots—the only thing many of these films retain. For instance, filmmakers, critics,
reviewers, and many others declare that the films A Thousand Acres and O root themselves in
Shakespeare’s King Lear and Othello respectively, but as they do not preserve Shakespeare’s
language or even attempt to parallel it cinematically, perhaps the filmmakers and others should
attribute these works instead to Holinshed’s Chronicles and Giraldi Cinthio’s Hecatommithi
correspondingly.
The language—the diction, puns, lineation, etc.—makes Shakespeare’s plays
Shakespeare’s. Because of this, one easily grants the label to those films that preserve
Shakespeare’s language, but what of those that alter not only the stock elements, but the
language as well, as is the case with Akira Kurosawa’s films Throne of Blood and Ran
(adaptations based on Macbeth and King Lear respectively)? In order to call films of this variety
“Shakespearean films,” the viewer must recognize some sort of visual element that acts as a
linguistic parallel despite the lack of Shakespeare’s language, and the following analysis will
determine if that element exists in either of these two films.
For Throne of Blood, Kurosawa chose the era of the Japanese samurai for his setting, and
though a Western audience might struggle with the idea of Shakespeare’s work presented in such
a context, Kurosawa essentially does what Shakespeare did and creates the same atmosphere for
his cinematic audience as that which Shakespeare would have provided for his own
contemporaries. Due to the amount of temporal distance from the type of events that appear in
Shakespeare’s play, twentieth-century filmmakers have to find some other means of putting their
2